User talk:Hu12: Difference between revisions
Siripswich (talk | contribs) →reporting: new section |
|||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
I was going to add it to [[WT:WPSPAM]], but the format there seems to be to include the IP or user names of those who have inserted the links, which is the reason for my question regarding available tools. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
I was going to add it to [[WT:WPSPAM]], but the format there seems to be to include the IP or user names of those who have inserted the links, which is the reason for my question regarding available tools. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Manually searching the articles to see who added..if there are patterns or multiple SPA's...you may be on to something.--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12#top|talk]]) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
:Manually searching the articles to see who added..if there are patterns or multiple SPA's...you may be on to something.--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12#top|talk]]) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== reporting == |
|||
<nowiki><math>Insert non-formatted text here</math></nowiki> |
|||
before you report me plz can you give me a reason and look up refferances to this so called vandalisam, from Siripswich |
Revision as of 21:28, 14 March 2008
Archives |
---|
/Archive /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 WP:GRIEF m:MPOV |
If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. |
“ | Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. | ” |
— WP:TIGERS |
The following is a list of articles currently nominated for speedy deletion. |
I'm currently in the process of re-assessing the usefulness of this tool. It may be replaced with something using the new <categorytree> syntax (although that doesn't have all of the functionality), or it might be deleted altogether. If you have any comments, please make them known on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The CSD list is not intended to be used for transclusion purposes. By doing so, you are creating many unnecessary "What links here" entries that administrators on CSD patrol have to peruse on each deletion. Think of the tiny benefit that transclusion affords you versus the large hindrance that it creates to many administrators each time every CSD is dealt with, and you will realize why it is no longer permitted.
See also |
|
---|
This is a list of deletable PRODs. |
Category:Expired proposed deletions |
|
---|
This is a readout of various categories. |
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a readout of the current RfAs. | ||||||||||
|
Welcome
Welcome to the talk page . --Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Qxz-ad19.gif)
You're welcome. · AndonicO Hail! 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! (eo)
Thanks for your help in removing spam from the Esperanto Wikipedia. If you need any favors or help there, please let me know! (I'm an eo-admin.) Regards, Yekrats (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great to Know, I've requested Meta Blacklist of that link, you can view the local report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#legambientecorato.it.--Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For the help sorting the mission grounds thing. --BozMo talk 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch! ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Help with whitelisting
Hello Hu12, I hope you are doing well. I was referred to a discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_28#Blacklist_of_digitpress and was hoping you could be of assistance. I am linking to a specific reference which is located at digitpress and it has recently been blacklisted by the spam filter. Could you please whitelist the specific link that is located at the Cuttle Cart page? I would like to retain that reference if at all possible. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- All set, Its whitelisted. Thanks for the note.--Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page, it is appreciated. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Check this edit out
An intersting SPAM threat if you ask me. What do you think? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's my thought on that.. --Hu12 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- So that means it's heading into the black?
- While I have your attention. Does the blacklist cover all inter-wikis or just the en-wiki? Reason I ask... a very long time ago I did a cleanup of a Led Zeppelin fansite link which was repeatedly added across many pages by a dynamic IP range. I asked Wiki alf for some advice/assistance on it... the website owner eavesdropped the conversation and basically said "go ahead and delete it... I will just keep adding it". I did a cross-wiki search on all 57 wiks and found the guy's link on all kinds of inter-wikis. SO... being the good Wikipedian that I am... I removed them all :) . Now, every week or so, I use the cross wiki search to find where he's been and clean him out. THANK JEBUS! that all Wikipedia's use the same button structure :) . I can't read Japanese, Korean etc... but I have a couple dozen edits on just about every Wiki in every language going just so I can rm this el vio. The user even tried masking his website by using a # & % type character string embedded into the link. Thankfully the crosswiki search still finds the original URL. The website is www.vjez.com. I just did a "global spam clean" the other day. And, as you can see from the latest crosswiki search, The world is still pretty much clean of him. But by next week... he will have spammed a dozen Wikis with his link. Is there any way to blacklist that site Wiki-globally? It would save my tired old fingers some work every work. :) . Although I don't mind serving Wiki in this way. The spammer didn't know just who it was he was p*ssing off when he made his threat eh? :-D 156.34.231.56 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a global blacklist which is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. --Hu12 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would the vjez link qualify for a global "f**k o*f" on that blacklist? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- One other question... even though I am just a lowly ol' anon IP... is it still OK for me to "clan up" with the Spam Project and put a template on my user page. Or would I be shunned and boo'd because of my "non-account" stance. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- To qualify for the global blacklist (or local for that matter) one needs to demonstrate that there has been abuse, document the abuse, provide the IP's and accounts associated with the abuse and provide diffs to the abuse( specificly for a global listing is providing diffs to the abuse over multiple Wikimedia Foundation wikis). If you look at the global BL talk page, you'll get the idea. A link search does not prove vjez was spammed over multiple wikis, as much of wikipedia content gets transcluded from one wiki to another. You'd have to go and look, document where it was added and by whom. As far as a template, IP's, unfortunatly are not considered userpages, someone will most likely remove it. I'm sure you have your reasons, but you should create an account. Wish you did have an account, because I wanted to give you a barnstar for the "sneaky external link" you reported to me earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- One other question... even though I am just a lowly ol' anon IP... is it still OK for me to "clan up" with the Spam Project and put a template on my user page. Or would I be shunned and boo'd because of my "non-account" stance. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would the vjez link qualify for a global "f**k o*f" on that blacklist? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I do have a user page... User:156.34.142.110. When I am roaming around the University from 1 faculty library to the next... my IP changes a lot. When I am at my desk... like I am now... my IP ... 156.34.142.110 is static... mine and mine alone. If you want to take a peek I already have several barnstars for who I am and what I do. I am also a member of a Wiki Project related to music and it's project template sits on my user page. I even have a sandbox and a talk page archives sandbox. If you need to contact me... I watch this Static IP page no matter what part of the planet I am in/on :D. Thanks for the info above.... seems like a real pain to doc all the spam history. I can just my wekely global cleanups a lot faster than I could document the history behind it. :D . Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, add the template! Left a comment on "your" talk page..;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you do ever decide to take an account, you don't need to change much. for example have a look at Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk · contribs) his/her sig is 69.49.44.11 ..
.--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the token of appreciation. I have been down the account road before. After rolling over 20000 edits with it... and watching a growing anti-anon movement at the same time... I decided that if Wikipedia was going to be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit"... then I was going to be "an anyone". I turned down over a dozen RfA prompts when I had my account. I've said it right from the start... no lofty goals... just a humble editor... and I don't need an account to do that. Over 30000 edits as an anonymous IP later... no regrets. I am who I am. Quietly editing in the "purity" of anonymity. Thanks again for the 'shiny'. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you do ever decide to take an account, you don't need to change much. for example have a look at Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk · contribs) his/her sig is 69.49.44.11 ..
ukinvest.gov.uk
I have taken up the spamming of these sites up with UK Trade and Industry. I have a role as a non-exec in Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform which gives me some chance but it isn't acceptable for a gov to behave in this way (albeit perhaps inadvertently). --BozMo talk 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for leting me know. Thought that was a little odd for a gov, but hopefully it can be sorted out. Keep me updated.--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Shaftesbury page
Thank you so much for locking it! These people just simply will not engage in rational discussion because they know they have only commercial gains. Thank you for protecting consensus. --Curuxz (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears the "new IP" assaulting the page is a result of 86.130.11.251's recent block. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Re - talk:Iar
Now to give Your talk-page some action!
- WP:WIARM has had considerable support for some time, and is a robust well-written document.
- The NbgDraft is essentially the "12words" plus WIARM, and I am glad that you approve, with others.
- "Understanding IAR" has a lot of support ( and I like it), and, a catchy title.
- I am happy to see a debate between competing essays for the prize of going up on the IAR page.
- Of course, many will want JUST the "12words".
- u:Misza13 has commented along the lines of "you're wasting your breath".
- I am happy for this process to continue, having "fresh eyes" at the discussion page has been very helpful.
- I hope that it is not seen , totally, as MY proposal, it is a generic proposal, and I would welcome others to run with the ball.
- Any improvements, comments, etc. heartily welcomed, (though, if it drifted from WIARM, it would lose it's main advantage).
- For now, I am leaning to UIAR, but the prior "consensus-support" for WIARM may be a deciding factor, or not.
- My computer is from Noah's Ark, sorry if I a little slow on the update, sometimes.
Cheers, and thanks for visiting talk:Newbyguesses, it was a ball. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have drafted over the 'provisional draft' to be 'live' at Wikipedia:No firm rules. Is it worthwhile for discussion to take place at Wikipedia talk:No firm rules, I prefer centralized discussion at IAR. Cheers, let me know if there's any problemo's --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen this? --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bit of archiving/reorganising at talk:IAR, currently (232,124 bytes) --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that all "merge" considerations can be addressed by adding the 12words in at the top of WIARM, instead of the current 'motto'. In effect, the DRAFT. That is, the DRAFT would in that case supercede WIARM, (hubris comes before a fluff). Then, the See also section on WP:IAR can get cleaned up as well, I think. Are you getting this, or am I off-base? --Newbyguesses - Talk 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, adding 12words to WIARM may solve this.--Hu12 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Following on from that, the "merge" debate concerning WIARM and UNDERSTANDING is off-track then. The correct "Merge" debate concerns *merging* WIARM with IAR, is that the go? --Newbyguesses - Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the WIARM edit is wholy seperate. The IAR merge into WIARM is the debate on IAR. Yes they look similar, but they are seperate. Don't confuse them or edit them as the same. I just made an edit to an essay (WIARM), thats all.--Hu12 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside that I am a bit groggy, been unwell and not on top of the "merge" debate, compare and compare these. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Following on from that, the "merge" debate concerning WIARM and UNDERSTANDING is off-track then. The correct "Merge" debate concerns *merging* WIARM with IAR, is that the go? --Newbyguesses - Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, adding 12words to WIARM may solve this.--Hu12 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this and the other edit have eliminated ONE confusing merge debate. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, but seems there is progress--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, yes. Now does this look good? The "provisional draft" has not changed much, but it needed a workshop page, I think. --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly, but seems there is progress--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You want something useful to do?
What's this nonsense all about? User:VigilancePrime/Archives/Gallery Vegetationlife (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Lip enhancement link removal problem
Hu12, I can't remove awfulplasticsurgery.com and cosmeticsurgery.com links from Lip enhancement article because I get a spam notification page about plasticsurgery.org links (which is a reference). While I think the links I want to remove are spam related (along with plasticsurgery.com and before/after photo blogs and physician referral "associations" ), I'm not sure how to deal with this particular edit. Flowanda | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All set, just removed the http portion of the ref link. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...is it just me and my new Lazik eyes, or do you look 10 years' fresher? Flowanda | Talk 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Link question
Is there anyway for you to... en masse... rm the link to www.digitaldreamdoor.com. This is, essentially, a personal website for music and the website own has compiled his personal opinions into "best-of" lists which, in turn, have been used incorrectly on Wiki as a reliable reference... which it isn't. The site is also a link for sound sample and lyrics and other WP:EL vios. By my last search it appears 118 times on EN-Wiki. Whenever I come across it I take the time to rm it. Do you have the quicky-cleany-uppy tool to rm the links in one quick whoosh? 156.34.231.56 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have the same tools as you. Look in the history and find who added it.. then remove. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, at 118 adds it was probably stuffed in by 118 different people. I was actually surprised that there weren't more of them. I will just continue with what I am doing... deleting them as I see them. I should be done in about 5 years. I'll let you know when I am through. :D Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looked at a few of the pages, and they were god faith additions, however doesn't mean they all were. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, at 118 adds it was probably stuffed in by 118 different people. I was actually surprised that there weren't more of them. I will just continue with what I am doing... deleting them as I see them. I should be done in about 5 years. I'll let you know when I am through. :D Thanks and have a nice day! 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Asia Prez".
Good blocks, we've had enough spider from him. · AndonicO Hail! 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wise old admin advice needed
Hey, advisor on admin matters! Gregor Mendel is in need of semi-protection again due to IP vandalism. See Talk:Gregor Mendel#Semi-protection again.3F. Since I have made content edits to the page, am I too involved to semi-protect it? There are practically no good-faith IP contributors, unfortunately. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Protection due to heavy or obvious vandalism, would never be considered a conflict. If it is a content dispute or edit warring over content your involved with or added, then you want an outside and univolved opinion. Simply having had edited the page in the past, or it being on your watchlist should not be an conflict. I support your decision to protect the page, be sure to add a protection template to the page (I prefer {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} ). --Hu12 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. I did the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No trouble, any time. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. I did the semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverting
Why did you do this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orange_juice&diff=196989600&oldid=196958577 Graevemoore (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was an error, however your edit here, was not reverting vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed not. But I want to know what made you revert my edit in the first place. I would like to know (In a neutral sense; strip the idiomatic connotation) what you were thinking when you did it. Graevemoore (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What to do in case of persistent 'occasional' vandalism?
You blocked
for the first time a bit over a week ago.- 09:54, 1 March 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs) blocked "76.169.219.16 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring)
If you check their contributions they have a extensive track record, and only with the article Romano's Macaroni Grill. They came back today and the mass deletion didn't get noticed for awhile. So... if a 24 hour block didn't phase them (indeed, they probably didn't notice if they waited a week), what next?
- BTW: do people ever publish their watchlists, just for the humor of the strange combinations therein, like Macaroni Grill and Yam? Shenme (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your 2 weeks ought to clue them in that they _can_ be blocked if they continue. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Should catch their attention and is preffered to protecting the page. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your 2 weeks ought to clue them in that they _can_ be blocked if they continue. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Hi Hu12. I have been asked a few times (which is always kind of flattering so thank you for asking :) but I'm fairly reluctant. I feel like this is kind of a selfish attitude but RFA looks like a lot of hassle and grief for very little return to me. Not to mention that adminship seems to be a fairly thankless role (so thank you btw - I do appreciate your efforts). If there was a shortage of admins I'd be willing to to help the project (I nearly applied when we were having difficulty getting action on the blacklist but fortunately others stepped in). But at the moment if I need something doing that needs admin tools I just ask and it seems like there's normally someone around. -- SiobhanHansa 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Advice requested
An editor has been repeatedly adding a link to www.cityoflakewood.org on the Lakewood, Washington article, in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL, and against the consensus of other editors on the relevant talk page (first added late January, but did not escalate to edit warring until last week). As his edit patterns under multiple IPs had already violated 3RR once, I was preparing to build a case to either request short-term blocks on the IPs/user-ID involved for edit warring, or maybe request semi-protection of the article. However, today the user also added the link www.cityofdupont.org to the DuPont, Washington article. This second site is basically the same site, just modified for the other city. The additions of these links are clear self-promotion to me; but as it has spread to another site now, I'm not sure if I should be reporting the links to either WP:WPSPAM or even WP:SBL (I'm uncertain as to the threshold for those).
I would appreciate any advice/guidance that you could provide on these. For reference, here are the URLs and user links:
- cityoflakewood.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- cityofdupont.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Accounts:
- Iarslangiray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.19.93.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 24.19.93.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 24.16.129.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
Thanks in advance for any pointers you can provide on how to proceed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ive range blocked 24.19.93.0/24 for edit warring, and reported Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#City_of..spam. If It continues we can lock down the article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I hadn't been anticipating you taking immediate action, just pointing me to the appropriate next step at this stage. As you did act, I've taken note of those actions so that I can use it as guidance if/when I encounter comparable situations in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also added (as I'm sure you saw) the info in the discussion thread. The user is sure to see it, and hopefully it will result in discussion as opposed to warring. Thanks for letting me know. --Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I hadn't been anticipating you taking immediate action, just pointing me to the appropriate next step at this stage. As you did act, I've taken note of those actions so that I can use it as guidance if/when I encounter comparable situations in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Dear Hu12, I am humbled and flattered at receiving your barnstar. It is my first! I am truly honored you thought of me. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good work, its well deserved ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Plaxall Article
You have removed relevant information which MUST be contained in the article. You have flagged the article for no reason. All information contained has been verified with external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop inserting Copywrited material. Also see WP:OWN--Hu12 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The information is released under GFDL, Read the discussion page for gods sake. Read the page the questionable material came from. It has the necessary release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad Faith Threats
Your threats on my talk page are not appreciated. Before accusing me of "disruptive editing", please read the policy yourself, especially the remedies. Nowhere does it say 'get into the editors face and threaten to block him the moment he disagrees with you on a subtle point'. And this is a subtle point. Please go to the talk page of Structured Investment Vehicle, and discuss your issue there in a calm and patient manner. Please do not block me, or I will take action against you. You have no right to escalate things this quickly for such a minor issue. I am not "disrupting" anything.
Wyattmj (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been attempting a discussion, why are you ignoring it?
Wyattmj (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith."
- Links normally to be avoided
- 4 Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
- 10 Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
- The entire content is derived from aggregated sources, and is a Link normally to be avoided
- Which makes siv0.com....
- 1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource.
- In addition. Please take a look at the Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Help with spam blacklist?
I tried and failed to add something to the spam blacklist. From the edit history you have obviously managed to add things successfully - could you help me? The two websites are hatingaustism.blogspot.com and autismfraud.blogspot.com. Background information is at Talk: Amanda Baggs and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Amanda_Baggs. Thanks, Natalie (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Both have been added [1].--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Natalie (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Incisive Media
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/48px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
An editor has nominated Incisive Media, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incisive Media (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Gagme Witherspoon (talk · contribs) = linkspammer. He started out as 80.56.152.2 (talk · contribs). Single purpose IP.. single purpose account. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Post on AN
Hi Hu12, regarding your post on WP:AN, we could see if we can get a comment on this, so that such sites can be blacklisted a bit quicker. A lot of people are spending a lot of time to get this whole lot cleaned up, a lot of articles are going to be de-referenced (well, they don't have a reference anyway .. but it may have quite an impact on the status of some articles in the end), and it will aggravate a lot of non-involved editors. There are quite a number of sites out there which have similar practices, and we have seen serious spam from some of them (we know the problem with the blogs, which are difficult to blacklist globally, but ehow etc. also advocate getting money for getting visitors to their site). What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, we talked about IRC earlier .. you could try http://java.freenode.net/ (you need java in your browser for that; try the channel #wikipedia-spam-t first), you could have a look around in our bot-invested channels, and we can have a chat .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say bringing up all similar for comment and striking while the iron is hot is a damn good idea!--Hu12 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which ones do we have (I am creating a subsection below with a list .. will add some when they come around)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
List
- ehow.com: "First things first, in case you didn’t already know, all eHow registered users can write and publish articles on their topic of choice and, through our new Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), automatically earn extra cash through PayPal." (http://www.ehow.com/write.html)
- associatedcontent.com
- suite101.com
- lulu.com
- I copied the list to WP:AN --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Locating contributors
Do you have a site or script that you use to identify who has added particular links, or are you manually searching the article histories? I've been coming accross a particular site that seems most commonly used as a reference, although it fails as a WP:RS (it's a forum for collecting complaints against companies). But, I'm uncertain if it's an organized campain to insert it, or good faith additions by multiple parties who didn't know any better. Here's the site:
- consumeraffairs.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I was going to add it to WT:WPSPAM, but the format there seems to be to include the IP or user names of those who have inserted the links, which is the reason for my question regarding available tools. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Manually searching the articles to see who added..if there are patterns or multiple SPA's...you may be on to something.--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reporting
<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>
before you report me plz can you give me a reason and look up refferances to this so called vandalisam, from Siripswich